Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, November 18, 2024

Jews were treated horribly in Morocco by Muslims in the 19th century - before Zionism

Ten years ago, I discussed a book by a European traveler to northern Africa and the Middle East, using the pseudonym Ali Bey al Abbasi, about what he saw in Morocco in 1895.

THE Jews in Morocco are in the most abject state of slavery; but at Tangier it is remarkable that they live intermingled with the Moors, without having any separate quarter, which is the case in all other places where the Mahometan religion prevails. This distinction occasions perpetual disagreements; it excites disputes, in which, if the Jew is wrong, the Moor takes his own satisfaction; and if the Jew is right, he lodges a complaint with the judge, who always decides in favour of the Mussulman. This shocking partiality in the dispensation of justice between individuals of different sects begins from the cradle; so that a Mussulman child will insult and strike a Jew, whatever be his age and infirmities, without his being allowed to complain, or even to defend himself. This inequality prevails even among the children of these different religions; so that I have seen the Mahometan children amuse themselves with beating little Jews, without these daring to defend themselves.
...
When they meet a Mussulman of high rank they are obliged to turn away hastily to a certain distance on the left of the road, to leave their sandals on the ground several paces off, and to put themselves into a most humble posture, their body intirely bent forward, till the Mussulman has passed to a great distance; if they hesitate to do this, or to dismount from their horse when they meet a Mahometan, they are severely punished. I have often been obliged to restrain my soldiers or servants from beating these poor wretches, when they were not active enough in placing themselves in the humble attitude prescribed on them by the Mahometan tyranny.

It turns out that newspapers in the 19th century had a number of articles from multiple sources that showed that, if anything, Ali Bey was soft-pedaling the problem.

His reporting was confirmed and expanded upon in 1859, by a British diplomat based in Rabat. His letter was published in The American Israelite, December 30 1859-January 6 1860.

The Jewish Advance, July 9, 1880, describes earlier attempts to help Jews in Morocco have a modicum of human rights, but previous efforts had failed - and Jews were being murdered.

The article continued on the subsequent edition of the newspaper with more details of the history of Jewish persecution there:

The observer than adds a sarcastic addition:

The topic even reached the mainstream newspapers in 1888. A widely spread article said:

The Jews of Morocco are to my mind at once the most interesting and most trying race of people, says a writer in the Boston Transcript.....Among the anomalies connected with them is that they are hated and despised by the Moors, subject to every insult and degradation that can be imagined, yet they are recognized as such necessary members of society that there is a law which is actively enforced, forbidding Jews to leave the country under any circumstances. The Jews, outside of one or two coast towns, are treated worse than the meanest and lowest animals

... Moor thinks no more of killing a Jew, if he can do It quietly, then of killing a rat. The Jews are not allowed to carry arms of any kind, nor to ride upon a horse, mule or donkey, or bullock, but he must make all journeys on foot; neither are they allowed to wear any foot covering outside of their own quarter, where they are herded together like animals, their dresses being regulated and restricted so they may always be known from the believers at a glance and they are forbidden to build any places of worship or to hold religious services of any kind-which command is religiously disregarded, services being held regularly in their houses, with, in some cities, a guard posted to inform of the approach of strangers.

If there is any nasty work to be done, as for instance the embalming of heads of executed rebels 80 that they may bang the longer at the traitor's gate, the Jews are pressed. into service; if the sultan or one of his officers wishes a few thousand dollars to meet a sudden demand, some wealthy Jew who has paid the least for protection, is seized without notice and thrown into a dungeon until he has been squeezed out of a proper sum..

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

11/17 Links: Why Jared Kushner’s return matters ; Yasser Arafat’s legacy: The death of Palestinian statehood; Senior Hamas officials in Turkey after leaving Qatar

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Trump’s pro-Israel appointments: Dream team or a tightrope for Jerusalem?

One of the main missions of Trump’s team, and particularly his Middle East envoy, will be to expand the historic Abraham Accords that his first administration mediated, and bring Saudi Arabia into the fold to make it the most powerful bloc of nations in the region against the “Axis of Resistance.”

It is also likely to resuscitate the “Deal of the Century,” authored by a team headed by Trump’s senior adviser and Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

While Trump’s new team might go as far as supporting Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and what former US ambassador David Friedman calls “One Jewish State” in his new book, it could also revert to the annexation of settlements combined with the establishment of a Palestinian state envisioned in the 2020 peace plan.

In April, the Biden administration signed $14.3 billion in emergency security assistance for Israel, and in September, approved an $8.7 billion aid package, including $3.5 billion for wartime procurement and $5.2 billion for defense systems such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling.

While Trump might maintain such a high level of security aid provided by the US to Israel, he could also cut it or use it as a way to pressure the Jewish state. This might become an issue for Israel in 2026, when the 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by former president Barack Obama expires.

Perhaps most important of all will be the Trump administration’s policy on Iran. High-level sources told The Wall Street Journal that the president-elect intends to reinstate his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, under the leadership of its original architect, Brian Hook.

At the heart of Trump’s foreign policy is the aspiration to end wars and expand peace initiatives in conflict zones, including the Middle East, a policy endorsed by supporters of an isolationist “America First” policy such as JD Vance, who will be vice president.

The bottom line is that while Israel can allow itself to be pleased with the make-up of the new Trump team, it should also be cautious.

Why Jared Kushner’s return matters for Jews, Arabs, and Muslims alike

Kushner’s familiarity with regional stakeholders and proven track record align with this goal, positioning him as a bridge between America’s interests and the needs of the Middle East. Today, the need for hope and healing is greater than ever.

The horrific terrorist attack of October 7 and the ongoing conflict have deepened mistrust between Jews, Arabs, and Muslims. Too many innocent lives have been lost on all sides, and the wounds from terror and violence will not heal quickly. But even amid this pain, there remains an opportunity to restore what has been destroyed.

In a world increasingly connected through technology, there are avenues for people to communicate, trade, and cooperate in unprecedented ways. Kushner’s return to diplomacy could capitalize on these opportunities, using technology and economic partnerships to break down barriers of fear and rebuild trust.

His experience in creating the Abraham Accords shows he has both the vision and commitment to make peace achievable again, despite entrenched skepticism on all sides. For peace to truly take root, someone is needed who understands the nuances, respects the complexities, and believes in the region’s potential.

Kushner is uniquely positioned to play that role. His approach—focused on investment, partnerships, and realistic goals—offers a path to a future where cooperation replaces conflict and prosperity unites rather than divides. As new challenges emerge, his guidance could help stabilize the fragile gains made in recent years.

The Middle East is at a crossroads, and the future depends on leaders who can foster hope and progress across communities. Now, more than ever, we need someone who can bridge the divides and build a lasting foundation of trust and shared purpose.

Jared Kushner has proven he can be that bridge.

Mark Dubowitz and Eugene Kontorovich: Lame-duck Biden ramps up sanctions on Israelis — and eases up on terrorists

Last week, 88 congressional Democrats wrote a letter demanding that the Biden administration go out swinging, sanctioning Israeli government members as well as a mainstream Israeli NGO that reports on illegal Palestinian activities.

These members of Congress want Israelis sanctioned for their political views and activism; their suggested targets are not alleged to have committed any violent or illegal acts.

Once he takes office, President-elect Trump can quickly rescind these sanctions or let them expire — but in the meantime, a new precedent has been set: The US government is mainstreaming the goals of the anti-Israel left’s Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.

Meanwhile, US allies including Canada and Britain have already imitated the Biden administration, imposing even more far-reaching sanctions on Jews in the West Bank.

State Department progressives may hope these countries will keep the fire burning — including through another UN Security Council Resolution in the coming months punishing Israel — while Democrats are out of power.

US citizens have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Biden’s sanctions. Trump’s Justice Department should quickly move to settle the suit, and to direct the government to stop basing sanctions on unreliable information from highly politicized NGOs.

For its part, Congress should investigate the process behind the sanctions.

Finally, Trump should warn the lame-duck administration that expanding the sanctions program could spur him to keep Biden’s executive order in place — and use it instead against progressive groups with connections to the Palestinian terrorists who are destabilizing the West Bank.

After all, turnabout is fair play.

Trump said to lift all military restrictions on Israel on 1st day in office according to reports

Amid escalating tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, President-elect Donald Trump has promised to lift all restrictions and delays on the supply of military equipment and ammunition to Israel immediately after his inauguration, Israeli Channel 12 News reports.

The assurance from Trump’s team came as Israel is considering a 60-day cease-fire with Hezbollah, which would provide a window until Trump takes office and implements the promised changes.

Sources indicate that this commitment from Trump’s administration clarifies Israel’s willingness to temporarily halt military actions, with the understanding that support will resume without delay once Trump is in office.

Unnamed Israeli officials have confirmed the reports from Israeli media to Fox News Digital.

Currently, U.S. restrictions include an embargo on a certain weapons shipment and limitations on various combat-related equipment, even if they do not involve explosive ordnance. This embargo has impacted Israel’s defense capabilities, especially as the military now contends with active fronts in both Lebanon and Gaza, requiring strict control over ammunition and supply use.

This pledge to lift all military supply restrictions, starting from Trump’s first day in office, would allow Israel to replenish its stockpiles and alleviate current constraints. With the 60-day cease-fire, Israel aims to temporarily suspend hostilities until the new administration takes office, enabling a resumption of full military operations if necessary, without the existing limitations.

On Thursday, the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon submitted a draft truce proposal to Lebanon's Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri to halt fighting between armed group Hezbollah and Israel, two political sources told Reuters, without revealing details.

Hezbollah calls a synagogue it bombed in Haifa a "military base"

This is what the Avot U'Banim synagogue in Haifa looked like before yesterday.

Here is a screenshot from a video published by Hezbollah showing the damage to a "military base in Haifa" from a barrage of rockets yesterday:

Hezbollah named five supposed targets of their rockets, all of them "military bases," including a gas station that they say is owned by the IDF.

In the video, the people clearly talk about the synagogue burning. Hezbollah knows that a synagogue was hit, but they do not admit it, and neither has Lebanese media.

The missiles hit the synagogue and its adjacent beit midrash only an hour after Saturday night prayers.

“This is divine providence,” Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav told Israel Hayom.

“There were no people in the synagogue, but in the surrounding buildings there were people who experienced a significant blast,” he said. “But as I said, most of the damage is not physical. There’s damage in many apartments, mainly windows. Some vehicles were also burned.”

Haifa residents are happy there were no injuries.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The Genocide Convention defines genocide as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

"Intent" is a high bar. No one can read minds; unless the accused party specifically says that they intend to wipe out another people, all we have are actions that must be interpreted.

The only way for anyone to determine that Israel's intent in the current war is genocidal is if they already hate Jews.

By definition, if there are a preponderance of actions and statements that contradict the thesis that Israel intends to destroy all Palestinians or all Gazans, then the charge of genocide is false.

I will not get into all the counter-evidence - anyone can research that Israeli leaders have consistently said that their targets are Hamas and not Gaza civilians, that Israel has facilitated tens of thousands of truckloads of aid, that Israel has been careful to avoid civilian casualties, that Hamas deliberately places its military targets within and underneath apartments, schools, mosques and hospitals making avoiding all civilian casualties literally impossible and that many military experts have praised Israel for its efforts to avoid civilian casualties despite the unique challenges of fighting an enemy that depends on civilians to limit attacks.

However, the people tossing the word "genocide" around discount and ignore all the counterevidence that refutes the charge. They grab onto isolated, out of context statements and incidents and try to build them into an edifice of proof.

I'll give just one example.

A recently released UN report accuses Israel of using methods "consistent with genocide." The very first quote they use from an Israeli official as evidence is:

On 9 October, the Minister of Defence of Israel announced a “complete siege” of the Strip with no electricity, no food, no fuel and removed every restriction on Israeli forces so they could “eliminate everything.”

The implication is that Gallant ordered troops to eliminate everything in Gaza and starvation was one of the methods.

These were two different statements.

Israel has been facilitating aid into Gaza since October 21, 2023 - the entire war except for two weeks. Statements made within hours or days after the horrific attacks on October 7 demanding a siege were never meant to be long term policy, and those who pretend that they are are knowingly lying.

The second statement to "eliminate everything" refers only to Hamas and other terrorists. It comes from a YouTube video of Yoav Gallant speaking to troops on October 9. His full statement is,

Take off the gloves kill everyone who fights us, even if it is one terrorist. From the air from the land, with tanks and bulldozers all means. There are no compromises. It won't be the same again. And Hamas will not be. Eliminate everything, it will take time, it won't take a day, it won't take a week, it will take weeks and maybe months.

Gallant is specifically talking about terrorists, not Gaza.

And this is the very first example given by the UN as proof. It is clear that the UN is consciously twisting the truth to reach its predetermined "genocide" conclusion, and it is trying to obfuscate its sources by referring not to the original statement but laundering it through other documents - in this case, the ICJ accusations by South Africa - that twisted the original statement.

The only reason for people like the authors of this UN report to ignore the massive amounts of counterevidence is if they start off their thinking with the assumption that Jews are liars. To them, every piece of counterevidence is either a lie or a coverup by Israeli Jews. They do not spend nearly as much time soberly looking at all the facts as they do at attempting to rebut the facts that disagree with their antisemitic assumptions. Their inherent, preconceived bias does not admit anything but the conclusion that Israeli Jews are evil, corrupt, lying murderers.

Indeed, is not a conclusion - it is the basis for choosing what "evidence" they will highlight and which they will ignore or judge to be lies.

Only people who already believe Jews are inherently bad people - people who are antisemites - believe the genocide slander while discounting or even belittling all the evidence against it.

Which brings up the other part of the slander that proves its purveyors are antisemitic.

The word "genocide" has been only rarely applied since World War II, for good reason: because the bar for proof is so high.

The prototypical case that all agree on is the Holocaust, since it is undeniable. Gas chambers and crematoria and mountains of shoes and hair are hard to argue with.

No one used the term for the Syrian civil war that included chemical weapons attacks on civilians - up to half a million civilians killed. It wasn't used against Russia for killing over a million civilians in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was not used for the estimated million civilians killed in the Iran-Iraq war which included targeting cities and also use of chemical weapons.

Those who accuse Israel of genocide, while never using the term for virtually any other war, revel in the deliciousness of accusing Jews of being on the same moral level as the Nazis. To them, victimhood is righteousness, and taking away the idea that Jews can be victims is a huge part of the slander.

It is not new - Israel has been accused of being like Nazi Germany since its rebirth. In 1949, the Saudi representative to the UN argued that Israel should not be admitted as a member state by saying the Zionists " committed atrocities not unlike those perpetrated by the Nazis."

Now, the word "genocide "is being repeated in a Nazi-like "big lie" fashion to turn the falsehood into a reality. Applying the word "genocide" to Israeli military actions when the term was never used for nearly all of the many other wars with many more civilian casualties since 1945 is pure antisemitism.

The "genocide" terms is being used deliberately to equate Jews with Nazis. There is no other reason. it is a form not only of Holocaust inversion but also Holocaust minimization.

It is pure Jew-hatred.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

This is a 1971 Chinese propaganda poster that says on the left "LONG LIVE MARXISM, LENINISM & MAO ZEDONG THOUGHT" and on the right "Proletariat of the world, unite!"

It is also the profile picture of UC-Berkeley graduate student Christián González Reyes.

Reyes is the co-creator of a class that was scheduled for this coming spring called "Leninism and Anarchism: A Theoretical Approach to Literature and Film." its course description, since removed, said:

With the US-backed and -funded genocide being carried out against Indigenous Palestinians by the Israeli Occupying Force, many have found it difficult to envision a reality beyond the one we are living in today. At the same time, we have also seen a rise in global socialist (and in particular Leninist) movements that are actively combating this destructive imperial agenda. From the Hamas revolutionary resistance forces combating settler-colonialism to a continuous anti-imperialist politic by Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, China, DPRK, and various Indigenous and First-Nation peoples across the Americas, there continues to be a commitment to anti- imperialism and anti-capitalism in what has been termed the Global South ...

This is not a politics course. It is a comparative literature course. Yet that doesn't stop the instructor from engaging in spreading antisemitic and anti-Western ideologies.

Berkeley responded to criticism:

In response to a query from Ynet, Berkeley said, "The matter is being addressed. The original course description was changed.” A university official added, " While we can’t, as a matter of law comment on personnel issues, generally speaking we take our policies that prohibit using the classroom for political advocacy very seriously. If/when there is reason to suspect those policies are being violated we respond quickly." When pressed on specific actions taken, the university cited privacy laws as a reason for withholding further details.

Someone had placed this course description on Berkeley's website. There is no way graduate students could put u course material descriptions without the literature department signing off on it. It isn't like Reyes posted it on his personal Facebook page - this went through some vetting before being published.

What UCB takes very seriously is the threat of bad PR, not the issue of classes that are clearly meant for political indoctrination.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

11/16 Links: Israel Is Fighting a Different War Now; Trump 2.0 means the end of ambivalence about Israel; Yoseph Haddad: Taking pride in being Arab Israeli

From Ian:

Safety Is a Choice

So where does this leave American Jews who want to make themselves safer? They need to focus on reinforcing the most important potential choice: the option to be a public Zionist in America. It’s that simple. And this requires demanding and forcing the chessboard back into position.

Jews will be choiceless as long as they can be demonized and harassed while a top-down anti-Semitic establishment gives cover to “anti-Zionists” to renounce dialogue, reason, and civility. And this, for many Jews, will mean, ultimately, being deprived of the choice of safely wearing a Jewish star or yarmulke while walking through campus or strolling past a protest. Ultimately, this condition means living with a physical threat that’s always present, just below the surface.

This work has to be a Jewish grassroots endeavor because it is often hard for even well-intentioned non-Jews to recognize this aspect of Jewish safety. As a former NYPD detective admits, for many cops and campus-security officers, the attitude is: “Who gives a shit if someone is yelling ‘river to the sea,’ or if they’re saying you’re a baby killer when you’re not.”

Sidestepping useless institutional leadership, Mike mentioned some successful work by an international group called Students Supporting Israel. He described how its members recently helped Columbia students organize an event at which two IDF reservists came to campus, sat at a table, and chatted with whomever wanted to engage. It mostly went well. “Chances are somebody got in their face,” Mike observes, “but [the IDF soldiers] don’t give a f—k. They feel they are fighting for Western civilization.”

All the steps Jews are taking to feel and be safer are worthwhile. But whether it’s through displaying symbols of Zionism, or reporting anti-Zionist incidents of anti-Semitism, or lobbying institutions and governmental bodies to codify anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, Jews of all stripes and political orientations should put pressure, time, and capital toward ensuring that Zionism is incorporated into institutional, governmental, and legal definitions of anti-Semitism. And they should call out the intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice of refusing to engage on the topic of Israel, naming and pressuring leaders who enable this silencing of dialogue.

Because identity itself is not a choice. And if Jews don’t demand the space to defend their core Zionist identity in public discourse, we will find that choice has been made for us.

Just after Kristallnacht, Gandhi said Jews should die with joy. What would he say now?

Zionism and the struggle to defend the Jewish State
Kallenbach, however, did try to convert Gandhi — to Zionism.

After witnessing with horror the Nazi rise to power, Kallenbach had become a devout Zionist and was even enlisted by the leaders of the Zionist movement in an unsuccessful attempt to convince Gandhi to follow suit. In fact, Gandhi’s opposition to Zionism had a longstanding impact, with India not adopting a warm stance toward Israel until as late as the 1990s.

The precise reasons for his opposition to Zionism remain a subject of debate. Some have pointed to the practical reasons why Gandhi — a champion of Indian inter-religious unity and independence — would certainly not have helped his cause by championing one so maligned by many of the world’s Muslims, including, of course, those in his homeland. Dr. Gangeya Mukherji, author of ‘Gandhi and Tagore: Politics, Truth and Conscience.’ (Courtesy)

“Gandhi recognized that as long as India remained unified and the Muslim League was part of its political landscape, it would be impossible for the country to take any position opposed to the Palestinians,” says Devji. “Yet, the Muslim League had itself advised Palestinians to accept the partition of the country that was proposed by the UN, which was after all what they wanted for India as well. In this sense, India’s Muslims, as a minority population like Jews, identified with the latter in many ways even as they supported the Palestinians.”

Mukherji, however, dismisses any connection outright. “Hindu-Muslim unity had no bearing on the question of Zionism,” he says. “This linkage of Gandhi’s position on the Zionist question to that of Hindu-Muslim unity is a more recent phenomenon, emerging from the notion of Gandhi’s ‘appeasement’ of Muslims. It is similar to the Arab denial of the terrible vastness of the Holocaust by describing it as an act of anti-German sentiment.”

Rajmohan Gandhi, himself deeply involved in decades-long reconciliation efforts, thinks that his grandfather’s “lifelong desire and effort for friendship and partnership between India’s Hindus and Muslims would surely have influenced his views on the Jewish-Arab question,” yet does not think that “his opposition to Zionism was strongly influenced by the desire for Hindu-Muslim friendship” but rather “intimately linked to his problem with colonialism.”

“He said that as long as the Zionists relied on British power to stake a claim on Palestine he could not sympathize with them, for he saw the same thing happening in India with the Muslim League in place of the Zionists,” says Devji. “He thought that only by appealing to and convincing the Palestinians to share the land would Zionism become a legitimate movement. India and Palestine thus mirrored each other in his eyes.”

Even if Gandhi was never converted to Zionism, it seems clear that he would have abhorred the terror onslaught of October 7, 2023, which saw thousands of Hamas-led terrorists invade southern Israel, killing 1,200 men, women, and children and kidnapping 251 to the Gaza Strip.

Yet what would he have suggested Israel’s response be?
“He would certainly not have approved a military response, but he would have equally condemned the [Hamas] attacks,” says Mukherji, elaborating that “he would not have supported the policy of Israel to expand, fortify, and settle areas in quest of safeguarding its sovereignty.”

While agreeing that Gandhi would certainly have deplored the violence from all sides, Devji thinks that the Indian leader would indeed have supported Israel forcefully driving out the terrorists, after which he “might have seen the October 7 attacks as an opportunity for Israel to take the moral high ground… declaring a unilateral peace process to resolve the conflict.” Mahatma Gandhi, center, confers with leaders of the All-India Congress Party, August 1942, location unknown. With him are Maulana Aboul Kalan Azad, right, the party’s president, and J.B. Kripalani, general secretary. This picture is from the film ‘India At War.’ (AP Photo)

“He was a great believer in the spectacle of moral action, and the attack offered Israel just such an opportunity to completely change the tenor of political debate globally and to its eternal credit,” Devji says. “But of course, elected politicians don’t always have the luxury to make such statements, depending as they do not only on their constituents but partners as well. In this case, the very weakness of a coalition government seems to have pushed it into a very predictable response.”

Citing his grandfather’s support of dispatching armed soldiers to counter Pakistani-aided militants in Kashmir in 1947, Rajhmohan Gandhi emphatically agrees that the father of modern India “would surely have mobilized and mounted resistance to the attacks.”

“At times a practitioner of nonviolence, at some other times he was a professor or teacher of nonviolence but a supporter of violent resistance. This is what actual history says,” Rajhmohan Gandhi says. “No matter what form Gandhi’s resistance to October 7 would have taken, it would have definitely involved Israel’s Arabs as well. A starting premise with Gandhi would be that Jews and Arabs share the land as siblings, have to live next to one another together no matter the past, no matter who ‘started’ which conflict, or who merely ‘reacted.’”

Gates of Hell

Review of 'The Gates of Gaza' by Amir Tibon by Michael M. Rosen
Terrorists hunted down Roi Rutberg, a 21-year-old farmer in Nahal Oz, an Israeli kibbutz on the Gaza frontier. They carefully planned their assault, crossed the border into Israel, advanced through an agricultural field, brutally murder-ed Roi, and dragged his corpse to Gaza, where frenetic crowds mutilated it.

October 7, 2023? No. The Rutberg slaying took place in April 1956. But as Amir Tibon observes in his new book, The Gates of Gaza, it presaged Hamas’s barbarous attack and reflects how profoundly and persistently intractable the enclave has been. Gaza is truly a problem from hell.

A diplomatic correspondent for Haaretz, Tibon provides a propulsive and poignant recounting of his own ordeal in Nahal Oz, where he, his wife, and their two young daughters sheltered for 10 hours in their safe room as Islamist terrorists rampaged across their community.

Seamlessly blending a history of Gaza with the harrowing events of October 7, Tibon highlights how, for more than 100 years, the Strip has destabilized the region and warped both Israeli and Palestinian society.

Long before any Israeli “occupation” of Gaza, Arab terrorists called fedayeen used it as a launching pad to infiltrate Israel and slaughter Jews. “The newly created Israel-Gaza border,” Tibon writes, of the period following the Jewish state’s establishment in 1948, “knew very few days of peace.”

Following Rutberg’s murder, the Israeli general Moshe Dayan visited the kibbutz, where he delivered a dark but realistic pronouncement. “Beyond the furrow of the border,” he intoned, “a sea of hatred and desire for revenge is swelling, awaiting the day when serenity will dull our path.” Decades of low-grade violence emanated from the enclave.

Even so, vibrant communities developed in the so-called Gaza Envelope, and the vast majority of them harbored hopes for peace with their Arab neighbors, even ferrying them to Israeli hospitals. Dani Rachamim arrived at Nahal Oz in 1975, eight years after Israel had taken the strip from Egypt, and developed close enough friendships with Palestinians across the border to invite them to his wedding on the kibbutz. “It felt totally natural for them to be there and dance with us,” he tells Tibon. “We were neighbors.” The community even hosted a Festival of Peace in 1994, amid the early euphoria of the Oslo Accords, welcoming dozens of Palestinian families. “Peace with the people of Gaza was now within reach,” Rachamim and his fellow kibbutzniks thought.

But that euphoria quickly gave way to despair, as Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization rejected further peace proposals and went on to arm Palestinian groups—including a newly formed Islamist faction called Hamas, whose establishment Israel tacitly blessed as a counterweight to the PLO—that launched a campaign of violent attacks, most prominently including suicide bombings that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israeli innocents. By the early 2000s, Gazan terrorists had begun developing the mortars and rockets that would figure prominently in the 10/7 onslaught.

Israel Is Fighting a Different War Now

Israel is now fighting a different kind of war, which has elicited a different Israeli mindset. “We’re no longer afraid of casualties,” a hard-bitten colonel told me. “I lost 10 guys, and nothing stopped. We don’t go to the funerals; we’ll visit after the war.” This is a fundamental change from the Israel of October 6, 2023. Israel is girding itself for the daunting prospect of a long war against Iran, even as its immediate conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah cannot be swiftly and decisively wrapped up, no matter what American and European leaders might wish.

The IDF has always been a military focused on short-term fixes, on tactical and technical innovation, on agility and adaptability. As an Israeli strategic planner ruefully put it, “We only talk about strategy in English.” That will be a problem in the next phase of this war. Israel does not wish to put Gaza under military government during its reconstruction—but it has also failed to devise any plausible alternative, despite floating ideas such as an international police force or a return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza. Lots of humanitarian aid goes into Gaza—I saw the long lines of trucks—but much of it is immediately hijacked by Hamas gunmen, who control the distribution of relief, and with it the population. Hezbollah is still reeling from its hammering over the past two months, but it survives in the shape of small cells. Israeli and American hopes that the Lebanese armed forces can contain it have always proved to be pipe dreams. The long-range strikes by Iran against Israel will surely continue.

The Israelis will persevere, and things may break their way—if, for example, Iran’s internal politics are shaken up by the passing of the supreme leader, by ferocious American sanctions, or by overt and covert punishment for the attempted assassination of President-elect Donald Trump. In any event, the Israelis grimly believe, and with reason, that they have no choice but to continue fighting.

Yet the changes in Israeli society are noticeable. The reserve army that has fought these wars is tired. Many soldiers and airmen have spent most of the past year in battle, and their families have felt the strain. The national-religious component of Israeli society—what would translate in American terms into modern Orthodox Jews—has particularly borne the load. Because of Israel’s reserve system, many of the fallen are middle-aged men, and many leave behind fatherless children. “Ten dead. Fifty-six orphans,” one friend bitterly remarked. The national-religious disproportionately volunteer for frontline combat units. Their antipathy toward the ultra-Orthodox, who are draft-exempt and have been draining government budgets at the expense of subsidies for soldiers whose families and careers have been upended by war, is fierce. “Cowards,” spat out one mild-mannered friend, who now despises a population whose behavior she might once have excused.

As ever, Israel is a complicated and changing place. Yossi Klein Halevi, one of Israel’s shrewdest observers, once said, “Everything you can say about Israel is true. So is the opposite.” And thus it remains. Israel includes alienated secularists and patriotic Arab citizens (increasing numbers of whom quietly join the military); it has liberals and reactionaries, men and women of all skin colors, gay-pride marches and obscurantist religious seminaries. But one thing is certain: It is engaged in an existential war of a kind that most of us in the West cannot appreciate unless we go there, observe, and listen.

Israel is now fighting a different kind of war, which has elicited a different Israeli mindset. “We’re no longer afraid of casualties,” a hard-bitten colonel told me. “I lost 10 guys, and nothing stopped. We don’t go to the funerals; we’ll visit after the war.” This is a fundamental change from the Israel of October 6, 2023. Israel is girding itself for the daunting prospect of a long war against Iran, even as its immediate conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah cannot be swiftly and decisively wrapped up, no matter what American and European leaders might wish.

The IDF has always been a military focused on short-term fixes, on tactical and technical innovation, on agility and adaptability. As an Israeli strategic planner ruefully put it, “We only talk about strategy in English.” That will be a problem in the next phase of this war. Israel does not wish to put Gaza under military government during its reconstruction—but it has also failed to devise any plausible alternative, despite floating ideas such as an international police force or a return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza. Lots of humanitarian aid goes into Gaza—I saw the long lines of trucks—but much of it is immediately hijacked by Hamas gunmen, who control the distribution of relief, and with it the population. Hezbollah is still reeling from its hammering over the past two months, but it survives in the shape of small cells. Israeli and American hopes that the Lebanese armed forces can contain it have always proved to be pipe dreams. The long-range strikes by Iran against Israel will surely continue.

The Israelis will persevere, and things may break their way—if, for example, Iran’s internal politics are shaken up by the passing of the supreme leader, by ferocious American sanctions, or by overt and covert punishment for the attempted assassination of President-elect Donald Trump. In any event, the Israelis grimly believe, and with reason, that they have no choice but to continue fighting.

Yet the changes in Israeli society are noticeable. The reserve army that has fought these wars is tired. Many soldiers and airmen have spent most of the past year in battle, and their families have felt the strain. The national-religious component of Israeli society—what would translate in American terms into modern Orthodox Jews—has particularly borne the load. Because of Israel’s reserve system, many of the fallen are middle-aged men, and many leave behind fatherless children. “Ten dead. Fifty-six orphans,” one friend bitterly remarked. The national-religious disproportionately volunteer for frontline combat units. Their antipathy toward the ultra-Orthodox, who are draft-exempt and have been draining government budgets at the expense of subsidies for soldiers whose families and careers have been upended by war, is fierce. “Cowards,” spat out one mild-mannered friend, who now despises a population whose behavior she might once have excused.

As ever, Israel is a complicated and changing place. Yossi Klein Halevi, one of Israel’s shrewdest observers, once said, “Everything you can say about Israel is true. So is the opposite.” And thus it remains. Israel includes alienated secularists and patriotic Arab citizens (increasing numbers of whom quietly join the military); it has liberals and reactionaries, men and women of all skin colors, gay-pride marches and obscurantist religious seminaries. But one thing is certain: It is engaged in an existential war of a kind that most of us in the West cannot appreciate unless we go there, observe, and listen.

11/15 Links Pt2: The myth of ‘white’ Israel; BBC News – a factory of anti-Israeli propaganda; Pro-Palestinian vandals invade home of UW president

From Ian:

The myth of ‘white’ Israel

Following Israel’s declaration, two significant events reshaped the region. On 15 May 1948, a coalition of neighbouring Arab armies – those of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt – launched an assault on the fledgling Jewish State. At the same time, a sweeping expulsion of Jews began across North Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf, targeting an entire ethnic group that had lived in these lands for thousands of years.

Between 1948 and the early 1970s, nearly a million Jews were forced from their homes across the region, effectively erasing centuries-old communities. Iraq’s once thriving Jewish population of 130,000 was reduced to near extinction, with 120,000 fleeing by the early 1950s. Yemen’s 50,000 Jews disappeared in the span of a year from 1949, while Syria’s 30,000 Jews were driven out by escalating violence.

In North Africa, Egypt’s 80,000-strong Jewish community dwindled to just a few dozen, driven out by a succession of anti-Jewish laws. Libya expelled its 38,000 Jews by the 1960s. Algeria’s 140,000 Jews had mostly left for France by 1962. Morocco was once home to a large Jewish community, with a population numbering between 250,000 and 350,000. However, rising Arab nationalism forced most to emigrate, with only a couple of thousand remaining today.

This purge didn’t occur in a vacuum. Jews and Christians in the Islamic world had long been relegated to second-class status, forced to pay special taxes and subjected to arbitrary and discriminatory laws. The mass expulsions following Israel’s creation were simply the culmination of a long history of subjugation.

Today, around 50 per cent of Israel’s Jewish population is of Mizrahi descent – Jews whose parents and grandparents were forcibly expelled from neighbouring Muslim lands. Their ancestors had likely never set foot in Europe.

Israel’s ethnic makeup is approximately 73 per cent Jewish and 19 per cent Muslim, with Christians, Druze and other minorities making up the rest. All Israeli citizens are afforded equal rights under the law, including religious and political freedom. Israel is, in every sense, a Middle Eastern melting pot.

The claim that Israel is a ‘white’ coloniser nation is a myth cooked up by identity politics. The only way that the average keffiyeh-wearing student protester is able to understand the Israel-Palestine conflict is through this identitarian lens. Because whiteness has become shorthand for privileged oppressors, the Israelis must be ‘white’ in contrast to the ‘brown’ Palestinians – thus making Israel an acceptable target of woke vitriol. This simplistic fantasy is just another attempt to delegitimise and demonise the Jewish State.

There is an irony in the slurs that were yelled out on the London Underground last month. Israel is a diverse nation, a place where many people rub along. ‘Whites out of Palestine’ is an absurd chant. Israelis do not segregate themselves on racial or ethnic lines. Sadly, the same could probably not be said about those protesting against them.

Seth Mandel: The Illusion of Jewish Free-Speech Rights

Less than a week after the pogrom in Amsterdam, UN celebrity Jew-baiter Francesca Albanese was scheduled to speak in London. Albanese has embraced authoritarian anti-Semitism and become a hero to the worst people in politics. The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, a British organization, worked up plans to protest Albanese’s arrival.

But the protest never happened. The Telegraph explained why: Security officials picked up chatter on social media apps in which locals were very plainly making plans to attack the Jewish demonstrators. “Can’t wait to give the welcome they deserve,” said one resident, to which another—who had been using anti-Semitic lingo in the chat—responded: “Amsterdam-style.”

Thus the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was put in a position familiar to Jewish groups: take the risk or call it off.

There are two broad lessons here. The first is that while Jews nominally have the same rights as anyone, in practice that’s a joke. A popular defense of the pogromists has been that the Jews got what they deserved because some of the Maccabi fans sang provocative chants in response to taunting from the crowd as they walked to the subway.

According to this logic, after every march in which keffiyeh-clad protesters chant “from the river to the sea” and other such phrases, it would be normal for Americans to carry out mass organized violence against anyone from the general public seen wearing a checkered scarf.

This argument boils down to: “The Jews deserved it because one single time they behaved as we behave weekly and sometimes daily.”

Meanwhile, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism has no record of chanting soccer taunts. May they peacefully protest? The answer, in this case, was no—because nobody actually cares what Jews say; they only care that Jews exist. So the Jews stayed home.

And as events in Chicago recently demonstrated, you can establish a tent city to block Jews from walking through campus, but if you are Jewish and you set up a two-man station on one street corner with a sign that says “ask me about Israel” you can expect to have your skull beaten in.

David Collier: BBC News – a factory of anti-Israeli propaganda

If you want to find bias in BBC News, you really do not have to look far. In just 30 hours, the BBC hate factory pushed out five articles – all full of distortion and lies. One even blatantly promotes a blood libel. This is not about a problematic journalist who manages to sneak a dodgy article past a sleepy gatekeeper. It is as if the BBC has declared war on the Jewish state. The arsenal of the public broadcaster is pointing firmly at Israel – and the result is a conveyor belt of articles – all shaped to demonise the only democracy in the Middle East.

On Thursday I took a look at the Israel / Gaza page on the BBC website. Scrolling down, you can see all the latest articles posted on the topic. It quickly becomes apparent that approximately every six hours BBC Journalists are posting another article – every single one of them is attacking Israel. No balance, no context, no alternative voice.

BBC factory of hate
Five anti-Israel posts published within 30 hours. It is worth noting that on Wednesday 13th, six Israeli soldiers were killed by Hezbollah terrorists, the terror group fired dozens of rockets at Israel (including at the central region), and on Tuesday 12th, two civilians were killed by Hezbollah rocket fire in Nahariya. None of this was important enough for a standalone BBC article. So let us look at the five that did make the grade:

BBC hate factory – article 1: Violating the Syrian ceasefire

The article carries a joke of a headline and is not newsworthy at all. In fact, as you read towards the end of the article, it becomes apparent that even the BBC journalist knows it isn’t. Yet the editorial spin is left intact so as to make sure from the headline that people think Israel is doing something wrong. Israel was attacked from Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. Three of these places have a border with the Jewish state. Israel is rejigging its security – an understandable and legitimate act following the Oct 7 atrocities and all that has occurred since.

The BBC tell us the work is taking place near Majdal Shams. The article also suggests this ‘frontier’ has remained ‘relatively calm’. It appears the journalist did not bother to look up Majdal Shams, as 11 Druze children were killed by Hezbollah as they played football in the Druze town. Not mentioned in this BBC hit piece of course. How can you fail to mention a massacre of children that took place in the very place you are claiming is quiet?

More than this. The BBC often use UN statements as a means of attacking Israel – as if the UN is an impartial and respected organisation. This badly misinforms readers. Not only is the UN body ‘UNRWA’ in bed with Hamas, another UN body ‘UNIFIL’ allowed Hezbollah to turn Sth Lebanon into a terrorist fortress. When you also consider the UN has a twisted obsession with attacking Israel, the UNGA is overrun with despotic regimes, and the UNHRC (courtesy of the UNGA) is fronted by the world’s worst human rights offenders, no impartial and serious media outlet should ever mention the UN without a reminder that all UN criticism of Israel should be treated with scepticism.

The BBC never does this – which is either unforgivable amateurish reporting, simple stupidity, or a deliberate intent to mislead.

11/15 Links Pt1: America’s Words and Amsterdam’s Example; Who Won the Jewish Vote?; Israel destroyed secret Iranian nuclear research facility

From Ian:

Meir Y. Soloveichik: America’s Words and Amsterdam’s Example

Kisin is exactly right, and another insightful outsider allows us to understand why philo-Semitism in America is so profound. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks recounted how, as a college student, he visited Washington for the first time and was struck by the fact that the memorials for great American figures featured not only images but words as well. The Jefferson Memorial, for example, features not only a statue of the author of the Declaration of Independence but also the words of the document that changed the world. David Chester French’s memorial for Lincoln houses not only the statue of an enthroned president but also the chiseled texts of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural. In contrast, Sacks continued, the statue in Westminster of Churchill—for whom words were somewhat important—contains only a single word: “Churchill.”

The point, Sacks explained, is that America was inspired by the Hebraic conception of covenant, of a nation dedicated to an idea. Only with this in mind can the story of Jews in America—and the American affection for Israel—be understood.

It bears remembering that America was not the first nation to be inspired by the Jews. As I write these words, the Internet is filled with videos of an anti-Semitic pogrom in Amsterdam. The images ought to be haunting and horrific to anyone, but they are particularly so for those who understand what Amsterdam once meant to Jewish history.

It was in Amsterdam that the Jews of Europe—expelled from England and burned alive in the auto-da-fé of Spain and Portugal—first found a beacon of freedom in the 1600s. As the historian Steven Nadler notes, the fact that this occurred is not happenstance; it “goes right to the heart of Dutch identity in the seventeenth century, particularly as this evolved through the struggle for independence from Spain and the political, social, and artistic forces unleashed by that crusade.” The Dutch, Nadler reflects,

saw their own recent history—their campaign for political sovereignty, liberated from Spain, and for religious freedom from Catholic oppression—reflected in the biblical story of the Israelite struggle for emancipation from bondage in Egypt and the subsequent fight to claim the lands that God had promised them.… By 1648, with the Dutch victory over Spain finalized with the Peace of Westphalia, an equally apt, and equally overplayed, biblical image was available: David vanquishing Goliath. This brilliant vision went beyond the military struggle and colored the internal politics of the new nation. The Dutch found in Hebrew Scripture a rich source of models for both martial and civic virtues: courage, temperance, fortitude, wisdom, and justice. The republic was often likened to the Israelite commonwealth, and its rulers to the Hebrew judges and kings.

Before America, there was Amsterdam. But it was not in the Netherlands that Jews found full equality; that would come only in the country that would place human equality at the core of its creed and consider itself covenantal in seeking to further this vision. That is why Kisin is correct in understanding the philo-Semitism that is still to be found in the American electorate. It is rooted in the fact that, as Sacks put it, “Israel, ancient and modern, and the United States are the two supreme examples of societies constructed in conscious pursuit of an idea.”

What happened in Amsterdam is, of course, a warning for America, for it is, alas, not difficult to ima-gine a similar mob made manifest on an Ivy League college quad or on the streets of Los Angeles or New York. Nevertheless, at the end of an eventful first week in November, one truth is quite clear. The commonality between America and Israel—and the bond built upon it—endures. And surely, whatever one’s views on the many policy questions facing this country in this season of Thanksgiving, that is a reason for gratitude.

John Podhoretz: They’re Hunting Us Down

In fact, the rampage against Israelis in Amsterdam in November was literally dubbed a “Jew hunt” in the WhatsApp chat groups that organized it. True to classic anti-Semitic form, the beatings and menacings were instantly blamed on Jewish soccer hooligans in town to watch the Maccabi team play. That is the Big Lie of the year. It had begun to take shape the evening before and was organized through WhatsApp and Telegram—with Uber drivers and others sharing information about where Israelis were walking and where they were staying. People working in hotels sent word that the Jews had come back to their rooms.

Officials in Amsterdam have made it clear in no uncertain terms that whatever behavior Israelis might have engaged in, they did not precipitate, nor do they bear any responsibility for, the violence. The “it was Jewish soccer hooligans who did this to themselves” line is the deployment of a classic anti-Semitic trope, and the Jews who have engaged in it because they cannot bear to look at reality in the face better wise up. Because even an Episcopalian vegan loather of Israel who bears the once-Jewish name of Sulzberger might find himself being hunted.

In the same week that the Jew hunt was taking place in the land of the wooden shoe, a little boy was nearly snatched away from his father on a street in Brooklyn; a 13-year-old kid on a bicycle was slapped as he rode by; a Hasidic man was brutally beaten; another man was slashed in the face by a man shouting “f—k you guys.” Outside a kosher supermarket in Manhattan, a man was called a dirty Jew and spat upon. In Chicago, two Jews at DePaul University were beaten just weeks after an illegal immigrant from Mauritania shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he shot a visibly Orthodox man on his way to synagogue. There are daily incidents now in Toronto and Montreal in which individual Jews are being targeted.

It’s 13 months since the slaughter of 1,200 Jews, the wounding of thousands more, and the taking of hostages. Attacks on Jews are increasing in number and in brutality. The effort to “globalize the intifada” is no longer metaphorical. The design of the intifada in Israel two decades ago was to make everyone feel unsafe at every moment, to render daily life intolerable. Here in America, either law enforcement will rise to the occasion and raise the cost of Jew-hunting so high that those tempted to engage in it will stand down. Or Jews are going to take matters into their own hands.

And when we decide to do a thing, we do it.

Iran and Qatar Have Their Fingerprints All Over South Africa's Anti-Israel 'Genocide' Case, Report Finds

Iran, Qatar, Hamas, and other terrorist entities are quietly underwriting South Africa's effort to prosecute Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a new report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon alleges.

South Africa's ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), brought its case against Israel on Dec. 29, 2023, just three months after Hamas's terror spree left more than 1,200 dead and hundreds more kidnapped. The suit alleges that Israel is committing mass genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip but offers little evidence to support this claim. Nevertheless, more than a dozen countries have joined the suit over the last year, elevating international pressure on Israel as the Jewish state fights to survive.

The timing of the lawsuit is raising fresh questions about South Africa's motivation for bringing it, prompting an in-depth investigation by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), a nonprofit that studies global Jew-hatred. The report "connects South Africa's political and financial alignment with Iran and Qatar—both leading supporters of global terrorism—with its campaign to bring a legal case against Israel," ISGAP said in a draft press release.

The African National Congress, ISGAP found, was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy before it received a mysterious cash infusion in early 2024—just days after it launched the ICJ case against Israel. The source of this cash, the report states, is believed to be Iran and its regional allies, including Qatar, which are using South Africa to launder baseless claims against Israel and ratchet up diplomatic pressure amid a brutal yearlong war.

"Crucially, this money appeared in the ANC's coffers without explanation, mere days after the South African government brought its case against Israel at the ICJ," according to ISGAP's report. "Given the lack of merit in South Africa's case, and the unlikely possibility that it was brought unilaterally by an unpopular and near-bankrupt ANC, a crucial question arises. Who is actually funding South Africa's case at the ICJ?"

African National Congress leaders, including South African president Cyril Ramaphosa, have declined to disclose the source of this funding, which helped the party recover from nearly $30 million in debt.

Putting a case before the ICJ requires deep pockets. Estimates place the preliminary costs at around $10.5 million, with a trial running as high as $79 million. "Given the enormity of the cost, it is difficult to dismiss the argument that South Africa was the beneficiary of considerable external support," according to ISGAP's report.

In March, the Electoral Commission of South Africa opened an investigation into how the ANC settled its soaring debt.

By Daled Amos

The current Gaza War highlights a point made in previous wars between Israel and Hamas: Israel is not very good at hasbara. It is not good at defending itself or presenting its own case.

Why is that?

If you ask ChatGPT, it will give you eight reasons Israel is bad at public diplomacy.

Complex and Controversial Policies: Israel’s policies, particularly in relation to the Palestinians, involve a complex mix of history, religion, and geopolitics. Issues like the Gaza blockade, West Bank settlements, and military operations against Hamas often draw criticism internationally. Explaining these policies in a way that aligns with Israel’s security concerns while resonating with global audiences—who may lack context or see these actions as overly aggressive—is a significant hurdle.

Reactive Rather than Proactive Messaging: Often, Israel’s hasbara efforts tend to be reactive, responding to crises as they occur rather than establishing a strong, proactive narrative. This reactive stance means Israel is frequently on the defensive, trying to counter criticisms or viral images that have already shaped public opinion, rather than setting the terms of the debate.

Media and Cultural Differences: The media landscape in the West, particularly in Europe and the U.S., can have biases, or they might frame issues in ways that amplify the Palestinian narrative. Furthermore, Israeli communication style—often direct and sometimes confrontational—doesn't always translate well in other cultures, where diplomacy and softer rhetoric might be preferred.

Lack of Unified Messaging: Israel’s messaging often lacks coordination. Various ministries and agencies in Israel, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, and the Prime Minister’s Office, may put out different messages, leading to a lack of cohesion. This disunity can result in inconsistent narratives that dilute Israel’s main talking points.

Underestimating Social Media Impact: Social media has amplified global awareness and activism, making it easy for images and stories to go viral, often before Israel can issue an official response. Additionally, Palestinian activists have been more effective at creating emotionally resonant content that tends to resonate more powerfully on platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram. Israel’s response on these platforms can feel less impactful or, at times, unrelatable to the younger generation that dominates these spaces.

Changing Global Perceptions: Public opinion globally has become more sensitive to human rights issues, and there’s a growing skepticism of military power and occupation-style control over other peoples. This has made Israel’s security-driven messaging less effective over time, especially with younger audiences who may sympathize more with Palestinians as an oppressed group.

Language and Accessibility: Hebrew-centric narratives or content that presupposes knowledge of Jewish or Israeli culture may not always resonate with global audiences. Similarly, English-language messaging is critical, but without nuanced, culturally aware English-language communicators, messaging can feel disconnected or out of touch with international sentiments.

Perception of Overreach: Sometimes, efforts in hasbara can backfire, particularly if seen as propaganda rather than genuine engagement. International audiences may become distrustful if they perceive a heavy-handed or overly defensive communication style, potentially diminishing Israel’s credibility.

These are technical reasons, focusing on the nature of the message that Israel is trying to present, on the kind of audience, or on the nature of the medium. These reasons don't completely explain why it is that the Palestinian Arabs are so adept at overcoming these hurdles.

But, another perception of Israel's hasbara problem was expressed by Haviv Rettig Gur in an interview posted on YouTube. At one point he was asked about a lecture he gave where he contrasted the claim that early settlers were inspired by the Herzl and the Zionist ideology as opposed to the fact that the early settlers were refugees fleeing pogroms in Russia -- the difference being the greater sympathy garnered by the latter interpretation.

Haviv Rettig Gur (YouTube screencap)

Gur attributes the failure in Israeli hasbara to a basic Israeli attitude:

First of all, we don't tell it [that the early settlers were refugees] to the rest of the world because we don't talk to the rest of the world about these things. One of the hearts and soul of the center of our DNA and understanding of History, is the idea that we don't justify ourselves to the world...we don't justify ourselves because in the mind that is watching us, that is observing us, that is making demands of us. we're a moral cartoon serving, the needs of the cartoonist and that is not a fight you can win...

By the way, this creates a real cultural incapacity to explain ourselves seriously And you see it everywhere. I mean, you see it in Israelis literally having trouble on CNN explaining, you know, whether or not Israel is right or wrong because the feeling that you're justifying is something that is antithetical to their basic cultural identity.

It's why the Israeli government has established a Public Diplomacy Ministry five times and the last time it closed the public diplomacy ministry was I think October 16 or October 18. The public diplomacy minister of Israel got up on national television. She was a Likud appointee to the Knesset by an ally of Netanyahu and she said obviously this is a fake thing, public diplomacy...I'm an Israeli Patriot, she said and in wartime, I will not waste public funds on a fake ministry and so she resigned and she shut down her ministry on national television To me, that's astonishing because what's even more astonishing is nobody in the government blinked, there is nobody in Israeli government responsible for public diplomacy in any way responsible for synergizing, different branches, and everyone speaks their own mind...

The biggest drink company in Israel is Coca-Cola. Israel's marketing department is brilliant. It can hack the human brain stem like Coca-Cola everywhere. It's not that the Israelis are incapable of marketing, of telling stories of building out of selling ideas. It's that they can't do it for themselves because we don't justify ourselves...[transcribed and edited for clarity and conciseness]

Here is the Haviv Rettig Gur interview:

If Gur is correct, the solution to Israel's hasbara problem is even harder to address than the solutions to the technical issues in the ChatGPT list.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Is Iran still planning to attack Israel after Trump's election victory?

JNS reports that the plans for Iran's attack have been put on hold:

The Iranian leadership decided to postpone a third direct attack on Israel following last week’s U.S. presidential election, won by Republican candidate Donald Trump, officials in Jerusalem familiar with the matter told Israel Hayom on Thursday.

The Israeli report came a day after Iranian sources told Sky News that Trump’s impending return to the White House led the Tehran regime to delay the attack.

According to Israel Hayom, the Islamic Republic shelved its plans in the hope of kick-starting negotiations with the Trump administration, which will take charge at noon on Jan. 20.

The Israeli sources also said that the incoming administration is drafting plans to bring down the Islamist regime, which has ruled Iran for more than four decades. Tehran’s decision to refrain from attacking Israel at this time was reportedly made to head off this scenario.

Trump's victory already appears to have had a greater effect on Iran's aggressiveness than any number of President Biden's "Don't" warnings.

But while their rhetoric has calmed down, Iranian media is still insisting that plans are moving ahead for what they call "Operation True Promise 3". Yesterday a member of Iran's Expediency Council said that "we are preparing" for the operation. An IRGC official said on Sunday night that the attack will come when Iran's Supreme Leader says it will. A cleric today said "determination, Iranian courage and Islamic honor require that the Sadiq 3 operation be carried out."

And one outlet released a movie trailer about the promised attack.

This is a far cry from the extreme warmongering rhetoric in the first week of November. There seems no doubt that Trump's victory has checked Iran's ambitions, as they know that he plans to reimpose sanctions that were loosened by the current administration and it is not politically wise to attack Israel when the incoming White House is uncompromisingly pro-Israel.

Meanwhile it appears that Israel's last attack on Iran was even more effective than reported. Axios says:

The Israeli attack on Iran in late October destroyed an active top secret nuclear weapons research facility in Parchin, according to three U.S. officials, one current Israeli official and one former Israeli official.

The strike — which targeted a site previously reported to be inactive — significantly damaged Iran's effort over the past year to resume nuclear weapons research, Israeli and U.S. officials said.

One former Israeli official briefed on the strike said it destroyed sophisticated equipment used to design the plastic explosives that surround uranium in a nuclear device and are needed to detonate it.

This was a way for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear program without Iran being able to deny it, since the program is not supposed to exist. It also highlights Israel's intelligence capabilities, as well as Israel's ability to identify the critical links in the supply chain necessary to build a nuclear device and damage the program without having to attack well-fortified uranium enrichment facilities or the like.

And this might be part of Iran's calculations as to when and how to attack Israel, knowing that this was a relatively easy target to destroy.

(h/t Yoel)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!